The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobels?
推理判断根据题干内容回文定位到第四段，选项A“历史上对它们从未有过怀疑”，文中未提及doubt的相关信息；同样地，选项B“它们是最具代表性的荣誉”中honor也是文中未提及的信息；而选项C“它们的合理性一直备受争议”对应原文“Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy”，即诺贝尔奖的合理性不是其设立的初衷，而在于时间。很明显选项C与原文意思相反，故排除；选项D“它们的持久性使其得到公正的对待”，同样定位到该段末句，其中endurance和justice分别是原文中time和legitimacy的同义替换，所以选项D为正确答案。
